Keruv and the Status of Intermarried Families RABBIS JOEL ROTH AND DANIEL GORDIS The principle of keruv1 is central to the ideals and aspirations of Judaism. We frequently cite as one of our most important goals the need to bring those who are only tangentially involved in things Jewish closer to the center of Jewish life and to make Judaism more central to their lives. While the term keruv is most frequently invoked with regard to Jews, the same attitude might be of import with regard to non-Jews as well, provided that they indicate a desire to become part of the Jewish faith. The well - known aggadah about Hillel and the proselytes clearly deals with a case in which the non-Jews approached the Jewish community seeking conversion (Shabbat 31a). The Jewish community did not proselytize. In our day, however, we confront a situation that requires active attempts to convert non-Jews to Judaism. The extraordinarily high rate of intermarriage among Jews (encompassing members of all movements, including ours) demands our attention. Having failed to prevent these marriages or to convert the non-Jewish spouses to Judaism before marriage (if we indeed had the chance), we must now seek to ensure that these families remain a part of the Jewish people. Therefore, we must actively seek to convert the non-Jewish spouse, and, if the wife is not Jewish, then to convert the children born before her conversion, as well. It must be emphasized at the outset that this policy constitutes an undeniable and significant compromise of traditional halakhic standards, which consider conversions solely for the sake of marriage as undesirable.2 Clearly, our deviation from the halakhic norm in this case stems not from disdain for it, but from an awareness of the urgency of the status quo in many communities. Needless to say, the standards for the actual conversion ceremony must remain unaffected. Our only departure from halakhah in this case involves the inclusion of an additional group of people as eligible for consideration as converts. 3 Yet, while conversion of the non­ Jewish spouse in an intermarriage constitutes the ultimate goal, it must surely be recognized that the response will not be immediate in the vast majority of couples, and that it is therefore necessary to arrive at a set of policies for dealing with the intermarried family in the context of synagogue life. It is in this regard that keruv will apply more readily. To what extent are we prepared to go in order to include the Jewish members of these families in the synagogue? Related issues must be considered with regard 151 The Committee on ]wish Law arul Starulards of the Rabbinical Assembly provides guidance in matters of halakhah fur the Conseroative movement. The individual rabbi, however; is the authurity fur the interpretation arul applica­ tion of a11 matters of halakhah. © Rabbinical Assembly, 1988 Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards I 1980-1985 to the non-Jewish spouse as well. It must be stated at this juncture that, for several reasons, we oppose the creation of new half-way categories such as yirei Hashem and the like. We oppose these categories for three basic reasons. First, our openness to accepting non-Jewish spouses as full converts obviates the need for any other status. Second, because such categories have not really existed in halakhah for a long time, their resuscitation at this point would be counterproductive to our goal of establishing our tradition as a meaningful and serious set of social and religious precepts. Finally, even if we were willing to revive these classifications, most of the people under discussion would not qualify because all they have done is allow their children to be raised as Jews. They themselves have not adopted Jewish practices for themselves (or imposed them upon their children). They do not pray regularly, and do not observe kashrut or Shabbat. The few sources that exist about such half-way converts seem to indicate that their primary claim is their adoption of monotheism. In our day, when everyone is already a monotheist, monotheism alone does not qualify a person as a yere Hash em. The intermarriage of the family notwithstanding, the halakhic definition of Jewishness clearly applies. The Jewish spouse retains his/her status as a Jew, and if the mother is Jewish, the children are also clearly Jewish. For these Jews, participation in the synagogue and its auxiliary functions should not be limited, for to so limit would be to act against the very intentions of the principle of keruv. The Jewish members of these families should not only be permitted, but even encouraged to attend services, enroll their Jewish children in the Hebrew or Day School, and participate in whatever aspects of the community they might choose, such as Men's Club or Sisterhood. One stipulation must be made, however. Because elected officials in synagogues and their various offshoots often serve as role models and/or spokesmen for the community, such positions should be withheld from Jews who are intermarried.4 After all, they are more than passive members of a halakhically improper marriage-- they made an active decision to enter into that relationship, a relationship which we consider of paramount danger to the Jewish community. That they should understand the fact that their marriage must affect their status in the Jewish community is not unfair or unethical; it is obligatory and desirable. This may also serve as an impetus for them to put greater pressure on their spouses to convert. Yet, aside from our withholding elected positions from them, the Jewish members of these families should be encouraged to as great an extent as possible to participate in the activities of the synagogue. Greater complexity arises concerning the status of the non-Jewish members of these families. There exists a tension in this regard between the objective fact that these people are not Jewish, and the sociological reality that they are less likely to convert, or even to take an interest in 152 Keruv and the Status ofIntermarried F amities Jewish life, if they feel shunned by the Jewish community and the synagogue. Therefore, the non-Jewish spouse and/or children may be allowed to attend synagogue services. Permitting them to do so will allow for a familiarity which will hopefully lead to feelings of respect and admiration for the Jewish tradition. (However, non-Jewish men should not wear a tallit, since that is a traditionally Jewish garb).5 Allowing non-Jewish children to enroll in the Hebrew School until the age of Bar or Bat Mitzvah (after this point, we will clearly not permit it) presents great difficulties. This is unquestionably a potential Pandora's box. It allows children to socialize with peers whom we would ultimately not permit them to marry, and it might contribute to the weakening of the clear distinction we seek to draw between Jews and non-Jews in ritual and religious affairs. On the other hand, not to permit these children to attend Hebrew School might well lead to a reluctance on their part or the part of their parents to agree to conversion. Nonetheless, in our opinion, the risks involved in the weakening of these essential distinctions outweigh the possible advantages of allowing unconverted children to enroll in Hebrew School. Children of non-Jewish mothers fall into one of four possible categories: (A) Children who have been converted, even though the mother remains unconverted. There should be no discrimination whatsoever against such children. (B) Children who have not been converted, and whose parents have made no statement at all about any intention on their part to convert them. Such children should not be allowed to enroll in the Hebrew School or to become members of any synagogue youth group or to participate in the activities of those groups even without membership. (C) Children who are not converted, but whose parents have verbalized a commitment to think about converting them. If the parents convert these children, "A" applies. If they decide not to convert the child, "B" applies. If they make a commitment to convert him/her but have not yet done so, "D" (below) applies. The only question revolves around the status of the children while the parents are thinking. To this category, too, "D" applies. (D) Children whose parents are committed to converting the child, but have not yet done so. We find this group somewhat problematic. Since the conversion of a child is so simple to accomplish in most cases, some doubt is cast as to the kind of commitment that really exists in the absence of actual conversion, except for the short span of time (measured in days, or at most, weeks) between reaching the decision and carrying it out. 153 Proceedings of the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards I 1980 -1985 On the one hand, an unfulfilled commitment is probably no worse than thinking about it, but on the other, an unfulfilled commitment is really no commitment at all. Therefore, these children who have not yet been converted should not be enrolled in the Hebrew School, though the parents should be encouraged to hire a tutor who would follow the curriculum of the Hebrew School in private sessions so that the child could fit in without difficulty upon actual conversion. Indeed, if there are sufficient children of this status in the congregation, the rabbi could even help to arrange a group tutorial session to take place in the home of one of the families. Obviously, these children and their parents would be welcome in the synagogue at all times for prayer services.